The idea that the Bush administration just did a combined 180-degree turn/belly flop on Iran makes no sense. It is completely out of keeping with the, “never admit a mistake,” and, “when in doubt, look for a war,” strategy of the administration. I’m surprised Cheney’s pacemaker hasn’t blown right out of his chest with the rage he must feel right now, as neo-con dreams for a wider Middle East war twist in the wind.
My completely uninformed speculation — which we, of course, delight in here at BMG — is that this is payback for the neocons from the CIA/intelligence community. They don’t want another Iraq.
The best speculation I have found in the MSM so far is from former CIA officer Robert Baer in Time. This is evidently equally uninformed, since it is written by a novelist-columnist-journalist (one trembles to add, “blogger”), and offers nary a source. But it is fun to read.
The real story behind this NIE is that the Bush Administration has finally concluded Iran is a bridge too far. With Iranian-backed Shi’a groups behaving themselves, things are looking up in Iraq. In Lebanon, the anti-Syrian coalition and pro-Syrian coalition, which includes Iran’s surrogate Hizballah, reportedly have settled on a compromise candidate, the army commander General Michel Suleiman. Bombing Iran now would upset the fragile balance in these two countries. Not to mention that Hizballah has threatened to shell Israel if we as much as touch a hair on Iran’s head.
Anyone with a better theory, please chip in.
The CIA while popularly known for James Bond style clandestine operations is primarily full of nerds, mainly IR theorist junkies like myself who sit in front of computers and calculate the odds/probabilities of our enemies capabilities and motives. It has been well documented by Richard Clarke, Valerie Plame, and others within the CIA that the Office of the Vice President represented by the Executive Intelligence Advisor repeatedly “cooked the books” on the actual threat level and capability of pre war Iraq WMDs.
<
p>Basically we have a CIA man in charge of the CIA now and not a political stooge like Tenent and the realists have taken back charge especially because the CIA is a division of State which has always opposed the Iraq war. So this was an intentional public report to undercut administration efforts to back (a likely Israeli lead) strike against Iran. My only fear is that the NIE which because of its cooked books against Iraq has lost a ton of credibility along with the CIA itself might also look less credible on Iran. It would be unfortunate but laughably ironic if the administration attacked its own agencies intelligence estimates and undercut a government agency. They were clearly surprised by this announcement as well just look at the Hadley press conference.
… the amount of effort they put into suppressing and delaying the NIE to me indicates another intelligence community fight over findings with the administration. I suspect the real reason its come out now is that with 20/20 hindsight in the Iraq NIE well known now, and with the Iran NIE’s existence well known,… there really wasn’t a way to suppress it indefinitely.
<
p>Even if its a bridge too far, war with Iran is still something that the administration would love to ‘lock’ the next administration into. Declarations of their elite army (I forget the name) as being a terrorist organization were designed to lock us into specific courses of future action (and out of others). As such, the Iran NIE is inconsistent with those goals. The administration has been very consistent toward Iran policy (or at least their Iran policy goals), and that makes this NIE the odd-man-out. I don’t think it reflects the will of the administration and they probably wish it had disappeared.
<
p>I wonder if the release of the report might be a Rice maneuver. (Like I said above, I think its eventual release was inevitable, but maybe she helped push it out now.) She’s trying to accomplish what may be the one and only positive foreign policy achievement of the administration right now. If she really wants to succeed, it is necessary to shut Dick Cheney up.
And if we want to get into paranoia, I think it was offered as a chip to the Iranians to allow them to back down without the appearance of backing down.
<
p>This opens up an avenue for us to support the peaceful Iranian nuclear program with IAEA inspections while they get to say that’s what they were doing all along, even if it’s not.
<
p>But then, I’m an optimist.
… and your optimistic scenario.
<
p>Problem is, if this is a sign of an internal fight, Cheney’s doesn’t back down. It’d take a decisive stance by Bush on one side or the other in order resolve the fight, and even he comes down decisively on the side of State, Cheney’s likely to do an end-around.
With the holidays upon us, we should see the administration work it’s wrath upon those responsible for the change. Mr. Cheney must be seething. So during the dead news times coming up there should be a “night of the long knives” aimed at those in the intelligence community. They’d best hope it will be firings, not “accidents” and “suicides”.
<
p>I bet the Israelis would like to slit a few throats…
There is naturally a bit of public concern in that country when a nation in missile range loudly and repeatedly says you should be wiped off the map and then looks like it’s developing nukes.
<
p>However, their government over the past decades has proved nothing if not pragmatic when it comes to detente with hostile nations that agree to let it continue to exist. Peace and formal recognition with Egypt and Jordan after said countries launched several wars of intended genocide against them, they withdrew completely from Lebanon in 2000 (that worked out great), Gaza in 2005 (ditto).. I mean it’s not like they’re just a bunch of meanies, they have a tough situation.
<
p>And Cheney may be nuts but I doubt he’s clinically insane. There was a school of thought that attacking Iraq might work out well for us, seems like that school was wrong at this point but Saddam wasn’t going to last forever anyways and then we’d have this same problem.
<
p>Iran? Right now there is plainly a lot for us to gain with cooperation in Iraq and clearly a lot for us to lose if any kind of shooting happens, like 75% of the oil coming out of the gulf. I’d listen to Bob Baer, read his book by the way it’s excellent. I’d also add as a reference point our support of the pro-Syrian candidate for President of Lebanon coming out of that peace conference at Annapolis. Without acknowledging any connection of course. Lots more happened there than is public, and we can only speculate.
… they have indicated to that they disagree with the NIE. It has also been mentioned that they could still be used as a back door to conflict escalation in spite of the NIE.
<
p>http://www.crooksandliars.com/…
At this point, we could have Bush and Ahmadenijad shaking hands at the top of Mt Everest and Hersh would be interpreting it as impending war.
<
p>Anyways, I disagree with the NIE too. I don’t have any sources but in the face of two invasions of their neighboring countries and all Bush’s rhetoric, Iran’s leaders would have to be stupid not to have pursued a bomb over the last 4 years.
<
p>But, I think we can co-opt Iran and I think this very useful NIE, along with the way things have gone in Iraq the last few months with al-Sadr and SCIRI calming down, the moves regarding the pro-Syrian General in Lebanon are indicators that talks behind the scenes have been productive. Now that it’s established that they “aren’t pursuing” a bomb, it doesn’t require any backing down for them to let IAEA inspections in and “continue” to not develop a bomb.
<
p>I also think that our administration, as incompetent as they’ve been, understand the stakes of hitting Iran militarily – you’re talking total oil shipping shutdown in the gulf and 12 tons of plastique a day being trucked into Iraq. Hezbollah rockets raining down on Israel. While we don’t have a single brigade available to hold ground in Iran with our commitments elsewhere. No amount of neo-con fantasizing can obscure those facts, these guys are ideological and incompetent but they’re not completely insane.
… of dismissing the pundits who were actually right. The guys who harped on the news over and over again about WMD in Iraq still have jobs inexplicably.
<
p>As for Iran… put yourself in their tactical shoes. Years ago, you know the administration would love to gun for you if they could or had an excuse. You know the US is about to throw its weight around and if they get a whiff of anything surely you’re going to be on the hit list. So your left with basically two choices. You could try and be like North Korea and speed up development as fast as possible hoping you can finish in time to beat the clock and then have nuclear deterrence on your side. On the other hand, the US has their immediate sites in Afghanistan and on the Taliban, which also happens to be an enemy of Iran. Also remember that this is before the declaration of the Axis of Evil.
<
p>I doubt their development infrastructure was in much shape to look at option on. If some kind of improvement in relationships can be engineered, however, look at what you could potentially gain… legitimacy on the international stage. You can be a real competitor to the Saudis for Regional dominance and could buy your way out of your pariah status.
<
p>In this context its not surprising that the program was shut down and ovetures were made to settle things.
<
p>While there are lots of very good reasons to be skeptical of Iran, we need to acknowledge that this scenario fits with what we know. Not acknowledging what appears to be the truth here runs the risk of being counterproductive.
<
p>
We can’t really know. And Bush’s statements today after the release were pretty vanilla, hard to say which scenario they would lean towards.
<
p>Well, hope for the best I guess. Either way things are better for this NIE coming out.
Such is the fuzzy nature of intelligence. Identical bits of information, depending upon who analyzes it, yields up different conclusions.
<
p>There is no certainty in any intelligence conclusion. One would be lucky to achieve a 55/45 confidence interval.
<
p>In the most recent NIE, its authors are intelligence officials generally opposed to the Bush administration’s Iran policy, the Wall Street Journal reports. While their conclusions are probably half right, they probably are also half wrong. US intel from Iran is quite poor, if it exists at all, so who can say what what the real story is?
<
p>I would suggest Bob Baer’s analysis is plausible and even likely; he’s a former CIA division chief with vast Middle East experience and no particular ax to grind. Of course, his political speculation is exactly that, but, as the Italians say, a good story even if true.
<
p>Which leads me to a last conclusion — as much as progressives here at BMG love to accuse necons of irrational warmongering, I will counter-accuse progressives of sticking their heads in the sand on the Iranian nuke issue. What if Tom Fingar, Vann Van Diepen, and Kenneth Brill, the NIE’s authors, are more wrong than right, and Iran procures all the requisite components for thermonuclear weapon in 2 or 3, not 10 years?
<
p>What if — all you progressives out there, take a deep breath — Dick Cheney is more right than wrong?
<
p>Given that, I wonder if you liberals would ever err on the side of caution in your assessment of Iran’s intentions, or will Bush Derangement Syndrome always lead you to a reflexive, and dangerous, conclusion?
Not cautious. If he were cautious, he would have concentrated on winning the war in Afghanistan and capturing Osama bin Laden, before starting another war in Iraq that had little to do with protecting this country.
<
p>As to Iran, the reckless position is to attack them, especially given the NIE. The cautious position is to be vigilant.
Please spare me. Ever hear of Operation Chrome Dome?
<
p>Our B-52’s took off and headed to USSR locked and loaded with the sole intent of unleashing Armeggedon on the Soviets twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, for over twenty years.Our ICMB’s were configured for immediate launch and our subs sat silently in the Pacific and North Atlantic to unleash instant retaliation. How do you think that would play today if Bush/Cheney proposed this plan to congress and the American people?
<
p>What was the outcome of the arms race (so-called)? Does anyone think that the soviet would not have entertained a “first strike” if they even remotely thought it would be successful. There is no one on this planet that puts your welfare above theirs. As a well known Marine opined not long ago, ” enter a room, be courteous, conduct yourself with respect, be kind, and have a plan to kill everyone in it.”
… neocon?
<
p>
<
p>And awaayyeeee we goo…!
<
p>Um, far be it from me to put a wrench in your fantasy machination league… but… uh… I jus’ wanna point out the wrench you you already threw into the mix:
<
p>
<
p>So why is it that one conclusion, which you apparently don’t agree with, can’t ever be conclusive… but Cheney can?
<
p>Sit down for a minute. Take a deep breath… I have bad news for you.
<
p>Dick Cheney is neither that smart nor that experienced, nor that well trained in intelligence analysis to make his conclusions any more valid those highly trained, highly experienced and highly intelligent experts who do it for a living.
<
p>Now what you say about confidence intervals is true, but that confidence increases (tho’ never to perfect predictability, I’ll grant) with the intelligence, experience and training of those making the estimate. The inverse of this is also true: confidence decreases with the intelligence, experience and training of those who make the estimate…
I’m also still uneasy about Bush’s intentions, and my inease was given voice by Scott Ritter: http://www.truthdig.com/podcas…
Something Bush said at yesterday’s press conference is still ringing in my ears,
because it measures up with his attitude and actions over his entire misbegotten reign. Facts are stupid things. And Bush’s utter disdain for the people of this country is abundantly clear. All you need to do to verify that is watch the expressions of impatience/disgust/anger flit across his face as he was forced to listen to and answer the questions he was being asked.
meant to say UNease, not inease. Haven’t had my coffee yet. 😉
…rooting around Larry Johnson’s blog No Quarter http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Johnson is a former CIA operative, and seems to make more sense than anyone I’ve seen elsewhere.
thanks!
While some might find them confusing or obfuscating, Bush’s statements on the NIE yesterday are a remarkable illustration of what the late John Kenneth Galbraith called “the Convenient Reverse Logic.” In this process, we first identify a preferred outcome or remedy-in this case a confrontation with Iran-and then proceed (in Galbraith’s words) “[to] move back to the cause that seems most consistent with the remedy we have at hand and would therefore like to use.” It’s the same Convenient Reverse Logic that guided the run up to the Iraq war. Back in 2002 Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, British intelligence, reported to Prime Minister Blair that “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” As Sir Francis Bacon said 350 years ago: “Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise.”
In this process, we first identify a preferred outcome or remedy-in this case a confrontation
<
p>A confrontation is a means to an end.
<
p>To yet again quote Clausewitz: Krieg ist eine Fortsetzung der Politik, mit andere Mitteln. War is a continuation of politics by other means. War is a means to an end War is not an end of itself. Commit it to memory.
<
p>What is the end of the Politik that you wish? Work backward from there (JKG’s “reverse logic”), and see if it is possible to achieve tha goals that you wish, given the means that you have. And if it is not possible to achieve those goals, and oftentimes it is not, change the goals to accommodate the means.
… notes a concession by Kagan in the Washington Post.
<
p>http://ezraklein.typepad.com/b…
All of the scintillating successes remain secret—–for many reasons.
<
p>The failures are glaring: Pearl Harbor, Operation Market Garden and the Ardennes (Bulge) WWII. The Chinese incursion into Korea, TeT 1968 in RVN, The failed POW rescue in N. Vietnam, the imminent capitulation of N. Vietnam (thanks Jane) The Iran debacle in the Carter administration, The several CIA/FBI traitors in the past twenty years, and the most egregious since WWII was the failure to properly analyze/interpret/ willfuly ignoring the shouts and screams of middle east watchers re the rise of Islamic extremists/terrorists, bin Laden, the 9/11 Catastrophe and the present prescence of Islamic terrorist cells in USA. The latter and most egreegious failure began with Carter, continued through every administration and culminated with Bush 43 (“herself” Ms. Rice).
<
p>As someone has already proffered, the various intellegence agencies have no idea what is going on in Ira, JE Carter
sabotaged our entire intelligence network in Iran, and now we are paying for it. I honestly believe that S. Hussein’s WMD existed post Desert Storm. It now lays in Syria. I also think that the Syrians are scared to death of going near it for several reasons. Primarily is because if they do, the Israeli’s will unleash an air attack, the WMD will be released and thousands or millions of Syrians will be killed. Who will they look to for sympathy. Again, another case of “We know, we know you think we may know, but you are unsure.” Do not tip your hand and confirm our suspicions . This applies to Iranian nukes. If the Iranians go near these nuke facilities it will confirm the prescence of nukes to Mossad and the game heads to checkmate. The only people that the Iranians are concerned about re nukes is the Israeli’s. The Israeli attack plan has already been formalized and partially rehearsed. The USN attack subs remain in the Indian ocean and the Med. Sitting and waiting.
<
p>Right now, Bush is caught between a rock and a hard place. USA’s intelligence network ( State/CIA is in a mire due to internal dissension, politicalization, basic ineptness lack of ability, and legal wrangling. The longer this continues, the increasing danger to our saftey. Six months ago Iran has nukes, now they don’t. S0——–who’s word do I take or do I flip a coin? If Bush fails to act
pre emptively and USA or an ally suffers an attack of devastating proportion, he will wear the mantle of failure for eternity, which Bill Clinton is saddled with now re bin Laden—-to a significant degree.
<
p>Having experienced it first hand on several occasions, never underestimate the ineptness and failings of our leadership, legal and political system and never, ever underestimate the enemy. Living in a free and open society invites all sorts of misbehavior and aggression. It’s the price we pay.
… article at Tom Dispatch (hat tip to Eric Alterman.
<
p>The fact the administration’s level of intensity toward its focus on Iran has already elevated their status.